Neo-neocon asks me to put on my mystery writer hat to solve the question of Who is killing Saddam’s defense lawyers? That usually takes me about a couple of hundred pages of writing to figure out – no, I didn’t fully outline my mysteries – and I’ve been a little busy lately. But I welcome suggestions.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
I put two suspects at the top of the list:
1) Sadrists.
2) SCIRI militia.
Assinations of Baathists has been proceeding apace these last two years. There were even reports of offices for recruiting would be assassins opening in Basra. The Brits don’t want to get involved. I think that after Anbar is settled the Iraqi government, depending on who is holding power, is going to have to reassert itself in the south.
It has to be Iran. It’s a two-fer for them. First, they return the terror “favor” to Saddamites that was showered on the Shia in Iraq for years (so far, they appear to be assassinating with impugnity). Second, they create a problem for this Iraqi government and the United States.
One has to assume that Iraq will never allow for a change of venue away from Iraq. Thus, the Iranians know that America and the coalition very much want to show a functioning judiciary in Iraq with a complementary law enforcement component under the direction of the central government. The Iranians would want to deny the American-Iraqi team that satisfaction.
It has to be Iran.
I don’t have any suggestions, but I would tend to agree with RattlerGator. However, in another moment of complete separation from reality, I heard a journalist this morning say that the assassinations were an attempt by Saddam supporters to derail the trial. I couldn’t hear anything after that. My mind locked up in disbelief.
My guess is “gunmen”. What is the prize?
Oh dear, Oyster–then I guess you’d better not visit my post
(the one Roger linked in this thread), because that’s my leading theory, also. And I’m not even usually a conspiracist.
True that the Saddamites and Baathists have the
most to gain by delaying the trials.
But a suspect that looms large is the UN and
those that wish the International Criminal Court
to be in charge.
Ask Sevan’s Aunt (Oh, she was last seen at bottom of elevator shaft just after gifting her nephew with $140,000.00 from her tiny pension) if the thiefs could also be capable of murder to further their world control.
Great crime novel stuff – except this is all real.
These men have been measured for their coffins. Their fate is certain, they (or their families) have a great deal of money stashed away – more than enough to have their lawyers shot every month. Kind of a new meaning for ‘legal jeopardy’.
The al-Tikriti clan will start killing judges soon. The new government might consider making being an al-Tikriti a capital offense – in one way or another.
They should have tossed a grenade into Saddy’s spider hole.
A new group:
The DBAs
a/k/a
The Dick the Butcher Advocates (or is it Apostles)
I’ld go with Rattlergator, but it sounds like the same logic that the leftists and Islamists use against Israel. (‘Who benefited the most from 9/11?’ etc)
Probably Iran, maybe Iraqi Shiites.
Oh dear, Oyster–then I guess you’d better not visit my post
(the one Roger linked in this thread), because that’s my leading theory, also. And I’m not even usually a conspiracist.–Neo-neocon
And mine for what that is worth. Frankly I think that the ‘who benefits’ equation is in full effect here.
Who benefits from Saddam being untried and more importantly UNDEAD?
Not Al-Sadr who has publicly stated he wants he tried and found GUILTY asap.In fact not any Shiite or Kurd has a vested interest in delaying this trial. If they additionally,want to kill off the crypto-Baathist defense teams there is plenty of time AFTER Saddam is convicted. Plenty of time especially in Mid-East time which is virtually endless when discussing revenge. For much of Iraq Saddam is job 1, and the sooner he shuffles off this mortal coil the better as far as they are concerned.
And who wants Saddam still living and delaying the inevitable? Hmmm—
This has all the hallmarks of Baathist/Jihadi sand in the gears techniques.
Kofi? Motive: Saddam takes payola info to grave after inept defense.
I tried to fit Bush into this but even my warped mind couldn’t make that one fit.
So far all ideas seem reasonable, rational, and realistic. Given that the characters in this drama are anything but, then entire realms of options must still exist.
My own idea? It’s not the big fish(es) seeking to delay the trial(s.) They may be murder-happy sociopaths but even they know that delays are just not going to happen.
Instead it is likely one or more ‘un-indicted co-consirators’ (Sunni/Saddamist/hell maybe even foreign nationals/OFF cronies) who have now accepted that the trials are entirely inevitable and that these attorneys, with all of their access to dark, dirty secrets, pose an unacceptable risk of exposure to them and their interest in the new Iraq.